My notes on competing constitutions 31/01/05
When the London Assembly members eventually joined Veritas, Michael Harvey (MJH) circulated his own version of a constitution which I tried to directly compare to the one quoted below. This proved impossible. My memorandum to myself on the difficulties is interesting in that regard and I quote the most important aspect herewith:
If the Party is structured as proposed by MJH it would belong not to the members but to the Associations, the proposal in 3 (3) of the MJH draft that all be determined by 'The Party and its Associations' therefore becomes of little substance.
In the absence of a draft of the 'Association Rule Book' where much of the excluded provisions from the (original) Constitution will presumably be handled under the MJH proposals it is extremely difficult to continue this clause by clause comparision. The main questions that are clearly to be raised are to my mind as follows:-
1) Is the party to belong to its individual members or to the Association's whose rules of operation are yet to be defined?
2) Should the members be effectively disenfranchised with everything being decided by Association Chairmen, MPs and Council Leaders? Should those who are able to attend AGM's and SGM's really be left to solely decide on constitution and rule changes? Postal ballots are not ideal but should the wider membership be excluded from consultation?
The above issue require resolution before making further comparisons worthwhile.
Martin Cole
31st January 2005.
In reviewing my own personal notes and memo on the draft constitution originally proposedby Michael Harvey I am ever more certain that he should not be the individual co-ordinating the final document. Perhaps an extract from the Veritas Party Home Page is best quoted here in illustration of my concerns:-
If you are tired of the lies, the deceit, the evasions and the spin of the old parties in Westminster, then join us, because so are we.....
Veritas will stop all this nonsense. We will not tolerate the bullying and the intimidation by the liberal elite in London.
If the Party is structured as proposed by MJH it would belong not to the members but to the Associations, the proposal in 3 (3) of the MJH draft that all be determined by 'The Party and its Associations' therefore becomes of little substance.
In the absence of a draft of the 'Association Rule Book' where much of the excluded provisions from the (original) Constitution will presumably be handled under the MJH proposals it is extremely difficult to continue this clause by clause comparision. The main questions that are clearly to be raised are to my mind as follows:-
1) Is the party to belong to its individual members or to the Association's whose rules of operation are yet to be defined?
2) Should the members be effectively disenfranchised with everything being decided by Association Chairmen, MPs and Council Leaders? Should those who are able to attend AGM's and SGM's really be left to solely decide on constitution and rule changes? Postal ballots are not ideal but should the wider membership be excluded from consultation?
The above issue require resolution before making further comparisons worthwhile.
Martin Cole
31st January 2005.
In reviewing my own personal notes and memo on the draft constitution originally proposedby Michael Harvey I am ever more certain that he should not be the individual co-ordinating the final document. Perhaps an extract from the Veritas Party Home Page is best quoted here in illustration of my concerns:-
If you are tired of the lies, the deceit, the evasions and the spin of the old parties in Westminster, then join us, because so are we.....
Veritas will stop all this nonsense. We will not tolerate the bullying and the intimidation by the liberal elite in London.
posted by Martin at 8:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home